_ SMT. ASLHING @ LHINGJANONG
_L.S. JOHN & ORS. . November 22, 1983
(S.. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, O. CHINNAPPA RepDy AND” _ ES. VENKATARAMIAH, J3.] - :
Contract— When a party writes to the opposite party that it is closing the contract, does the contract subsist 2 .
‘The “respondent who was a party to a subsisting contract with the Government for widening of a road wrote a letter to the concerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the said contract. The appellant contended that the contents of the letter did | not have the etiect of Putting an end to the contract Dismissing the appeal, HELD : After the letter, the contract came to an end by breach and was , no longer subsisting. Acceptance of the.letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the breach may give rise fo an action for damages. (864 B-C]
Civit APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1189 of . From the Judgment and Order dated the 18th December, 1981 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1980. .
S. Rangarajan, S.K. Nandy and S. Parikh for the Appellant?
‘A.K. Nag for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by “FAZAL Alj, J. In this election appeal the only point for determination is whether at the time when respondent No, 1. filed his nomination paper he held a subsisting contract with the Govtrnment for widening the PLP road. While it is true that there was such a contract in existence prior to 30. 11.1979, respondent No. 1 wrote a
*
864 mg SUPREME COURT REPORTS — 984 sc.)
.
letter 0 on 30.11. 1979 to the concertied Executive Engineer Stating. that" — he was closing the said contract. The last date for filing nomination was 10.12.1979. Itis argued that the™ contents of the said letter: does not have the effect of putting an end to the contract. After, going through thé contents of the letter it-is absolutely clear that the -
_contractor unilaterly put an end to the contract and informed the Department concerned accordingly and also he had resigned from the -contractor’s list of PWD Manipur. Thus after this letter the con- tract came to an end by breach and the contract was no longer subsis- ting. Mr. Rangarajan has submitted some very nice and delicate — questions for consideration. One of them being 1 that until and unless the letter is accepted by the Authority the contract would continue and thus the respondent would suffer from the disqualification, In our opinion having regard to the contents of the: letter it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Rangarajan that the contract was subsisting. - The acceptance of the letter. by the authorities was unnecessary for- putting an end to the contract. although the breach may give rise to a cause on action for damages. . No- other point is ‘raised before us. “We do not find any. merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. without any order as to costs. ,
*
ALC. - - a - ae Appeal dismissed.